Are there any living composers as talented as Mozart?

bob dylan

noel gallagher

grimes

Katy Perry

>>70248269
Mozart

Nah, no one will ever be as good as I was back in the day
i mean he of course, he

File: HERBIE.png (157KB, 427x639px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 427x639px

A. HEM.

>>70248269
Speaking as an ultra-experienced, highly educated, hoity-toity professional classical musician... Absolutely, unironically yes. But as to who? That's gonna take several hundred years of debate to determine. Although I will say that IMO there's just one very good candidate in this thread so far. And no - it isn't Bob Dylan. Bob Dylan is a phenomenal songwriter (someone who sets music to lyrics.) Mozart was a phenomenal composer (someone who sets lyrics to music.)

Btw this should be a huge hint to whom the one in this thread, since there have only been two composer-level musician's mentioned at all.

>>70249128
it's katy perry

>>70249128
What are your thoughts on these: >>70243761

>>70249172

>>70243761
Not even remotely similar (or imo on the same level) as Mozart when put into the contexts of their respective times.

Mozart was a musically savantic, edgy contrarian composer who was universally lauded (by those who didn't hate his guts for his personality) for writing thoroughly contemporary-sounding (for the time) music that was engineered to appeal to both highly educated and regular music listeners alike (see quote below.) All of these guys/gals are just edgy neo-classicists. The only reason why Mozart's compositions didn't include electronic instruments like synths/drum machines and modern pop hooks is because those things had yet to be invented.


>The golden mean, the truth, is no longer recognized or valued. To win applause one must write stuff so simple that a coachman might sing it, or so incomprehensible that it pleases simply because no sensible man can comprehend it.
— Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, writing to his father in 1782

>>70249776
I mostly agree with this except that he was a savant (he wasn't actually autistic, despite being portrayed as such in the movie Amadeus) or trying to be edgy. He just wanted to be musically experimental and innovative without destroying classical form, which he deeply admired (the same is true for Beethoven, who even his most abstract work manages to conform to classical form-principles when analyzed.)

>>70248269
Grimes. Her melodies are on par with Mozart, if not better.

This whole thread is just further proof that Mozart is underrated.

>>70248269
maybe that girl that wrote an opera at 11 years

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/opera/what-to-see/does-opera-11-year-old-sound-like/

hunter hunt-hendrix

File: 1471561854555s.jpg (3KB, 125x125px) Image search: [Google]

3KB, 125x125px

>>70248440

File: 1473824826050.png (512KB, 785x757px) Image search: [Google]

512KB, 785x757px

>>70248326
>>70249929
>grimes posters

>>70250710
If mozart came back he'd be producing pop music like grimes

>>70250742
yeah bro grimes is clearly a melodic genius just like mozart
*goes up and down the c minor scale*

File: AB2DC7880E982C44E3AE5D109C600819F11B902BC9C7935876FA66401DFB79EA.jpg (52KB, 690x390px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 690x390px

In all seriousness,
Arvo Pärt

>>70250780
lmao

Philip Glass.

>>70250780
no
>>70250819
I hope you're being ironic

Brian Eno

Hans Zimmer, of course.

'ye

File: Brian-Eno.jpg (113KB, 500x500px) Image search: [Google]

113KB, 500x500px

>>70250852
but i drink my pee

Probably someone who does technical death metal, which is the closes thing to classical music that exists today.

Sufjan Stevens

>>70249900
>savant (he wasn't actually autistic
Never said he was. Autism and savantism often correlate (to the point where many people falsely believe they are synonymous.) But - as the saying goes - correlation =/= causation.

>or trying to be edgy.
First of all - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mozart_and_scatology

Now - having gotten that out of the way - there are two methods by which one can go about breaking 'the rules':
1. Actually outright break them.
2. Subvert them.

In terms of his music, Mozart's edginess lies almost entirely in the latter form method. When taken apart and analyzed piecemeal, there really isn't very much to Mozart's music that stands out in terms of being unprecedented. However, if you take all of the individual pieces and consider how they function as a whole, THAT is where the magic of his music lies. And it's the same for every other artist whose work manages to end up as part of classical canon - regardless of the art-form.

>>70249929
Like I said initially >>70249128 - no one gets to be on Mozart's level/truly surpass it until after their legacy manages to survive for hundreds of years after their death. With that said, if I were to have to name a single musician/composer of the current era who functions primarily in the contemporary music world rather than the neo-classical one (since that ISN'T where true musical innovation or enduring legacies like Mozart's are established*), that name would have to be Grimes. Completely unironically.

>>70250780
>>70250819

* Speaking as someone who loves listening to and performing (as well as composing) neo-classical music, I have no problem admitting that it is an inherently dead art-form in the same way that Latin is a dead language. It can be an incredible inspiration to the creation of "new" things, but there is absolutely nothing fresh or innovative about it directly.

Eric Whitacre. There has been no greater accomplishment in contemporary music than his virtual choirs: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8oDnUga0JU

File: cringe.jpg (104KB, 780x1169px) Image search: [Google]

104KB, 780x1169px

>>70251175
>that name would have to be Grimes
>>70251214
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y8oDnUga0JU

>>70251175
Sufjan Stevens is better than Grimes.

>>70251214
See my footnote at the end of >>70251175

>>70250852
Honestly the 2nd best answer ITT so far. And no, this >>70250948 would be far from a deterrent if true (see >>70251175 2nd paragraph.) The problem with making a case for Brian Eno is that most of his legacy consists of what is - at the end of the day - other people's music.

>>70251348
what's your take on autechre?

>>70251348
wot do u think of death grips, gybe, anco

>>70251348
Thoguhts on Joanna Newsom? I luff her <3

>>70251369
Fundamental to the advancement of music (specifically in terms of being a proof-of-concept for electronically synthesized sounds being appropriate for the creation of music) but ultimately unlikely to be more than a footnote in the annals of music history because of how under-developed their music is. Which isn't a stylistic dig at them by any means. It's just that other people have since come along and made much more interesting things built on the foundations that they helped lay.

>>70251175
Good point. Henry Grimes is one of my favorite artists currently active.

>>70251382
>>70251435
Fyi will get to responding to responding about each of these artists (as well as many others people are curious about) in reference to their viability as contemporary classical canon (aka what Classical music is really about) as I can. Got some other stuff to do.)

>>70249128
I don't know man, Kyle Landry? Some movie score composer? I'm not much of a classical guy

File: 1484076460904[1].png (737KB, 648x574px) Image search: [Google]

737KB, 648x574px

>>70251298

>>70251618
see
>>70251175
>>70251348

Krzysztof Penderecki

>>70251063
lol

>>70251527
>It's just that other people have since come along and made much more interesting things built on the foundations that they helped lay.

Name me on popular electronic artist and or group that is/are interesting as Autechre

>>70251997
Kraftwerk.

>>70251997
>unironically engaging a grimesfag

>>70251382

>Death Grips
Too harsh-sounding and sonically extreme OVERALL to ever make it into what will emerge as contemporary classical. Which isn't to belittle their overall artistic value (BREAKING NEWS: Professional Classical Musician and Composer Death Grips Claims Death Grips Have Actual Artistic Merit.) It's just that experimental noise/hip-hop/rap fusion music is a lot take, aurally, and harshness is meaningless and incredibly grating on the ears when it is the default state of music. You've got to have a mixture pf pretty AND harsh sounds if you there to be a realistic chance of people continuing to listen to it after your lifetime.

>>70251382
GY!BE are great but Death Grips are overrated to the fucking teeth

>>70252068
Thats a given, but they're early Krautrock stuff is superior to their post TEE output

>>70251382
>gybe
Interesting mixtures of sounds, but it feels a lot like watching a Dario Argento film - all style, no substance. It's the sort of thing you're gonna love right up until the day you hear something similar-sounding to it that has actually discernible universal human intentions behind it. After which you will happily never listen to it again.

>>70251175
Damn.. you actually got me to listen to some of her stuff and they're just boring kitschy pop songs. I finally know what it feels like to get memed.

File: kek.gif (1016KB, 320x240px) Image search: [Google]

1016KB, 320x240px

>>70252336

>>70252293
What are your takes on SUNN 0))) then?

>>70251382
>anco
Aka the Beach Boys of the 21st century. They probably have one of the better chances of having their musical memory preserved beyond their time than most ITT desu, but probably not for any reasons other than nostalgia. Their songs all seem to speak to a very specific frame of mind. Which is both a good thing (since it means that if you happen to be in that mindset, then there is nothing better than listening to Animal Collective) and a bad thing (since the human mind is changes state/mood, meaning that listening to this band is unlikely to be anything more than incidental. In order for a body of music to reach the level of long-term appreciation that inevitably gets defined as classical, it has to be able to speak to many different emotional states among many unlike-minded people. I don't foresee that being the case here.

Whats going on ITT
...

>>70252293
>actually discernible universal human intentions
that sounds like bollocks. you'd say gybe doesn't have that because..?

also, why Grimes?

>>70251435
Imo probably the best thing to happen to the harp as a featured solo instrument in either contemporary OR classical music since Harpo Marx. Fantastic lyricist, okay singer-songwriter (as long as you can get past the one-dimensionality of her voice.) But not really in the running as a contemporary classical COMPOSER since the lyrics are clearly the centerpiece of what she does (see >>70249128 )

>>70250765
Listen to the rest of her music. She took some lessons from Bach too:

>Again - it depends on the style of music. In small-ensemble situations (typified by the jazz and classical chamber groups) sonic interest is principally achieved through variations in scale, chord progression, time signature, and tempo (aspects known as the horizontal axis elements of music in music theory circles - since they're rendered horizontally in standard music notation) rather than through variations in sonic texture and timbre.

>In contrast to this, large ensemble situations (typified by layered/sample based music - ala Grimes - and classical orchestra/organ music) the opposite is true. Sonic interest is primarily achieved through variations of sonic texture and timbre (aspects known as the vertical axis elements of music in music theory - since they're rendered vertically in standard music notation) brought about by combining individual samples/instruments together in constantly changing configurations, while leaving the horizontal axis elements relatively untouched.

>One of the best classical examples of this latter method is Bach's Passacaglia in C Minor (originally written for organ, but transcribed here beautifully imo for full orchestra Johann Sebastian Bach - Passacaglia in C Minor BMV 582 (White Nights) Notice how, despite its extended running time and constantly variating sound, the horizontal axis elements described earlier are very simply defined and NEVER change (the entire song's chord progression consists of the same 4 chords repeated ad nauseum.) This is the sort of context in which the complexity of Grimes' music (especially regarding her earlier stuff) is based; constant, conscious variations in sound quality rather than formal structure.

/mu/ users underestimate her so much.

>>70251305
Based on what? Your irrelevant belief?

File: 4z9doxNQ.png (437KB, 499x454px) Image search: [Google]

437KB, 499x454px

>>70251574
He meant THAT Grimes, don't be silly.

File: mozart_2000.jpg (40KB, 460x276px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 460x276px

>>70248269
no doubt

>>70252936
Radiohead?

>>70251063
kek

Not going to lie, I only started listening to Mozart after watching Amadeus. What a crazy madman

>>70252129
>saying grimesfag
>wants to be taken seriously unironically

>>70252336
You're just a pathetic hipster. Get over yourself, dipshit.

>>70253564
I can't really help it if I find them boring. That's just my basic response to the music. Sorry.

>>70251827
Also see my footnote at the end of >>70251175

>>70253632
It's basic indeed. Next time don't judge an artist by listening to a few song snippets, like you most probably did.

>>70253676
Well how else are you supposed to judge them other than by listening to their music???

>>70251305
>better
There is no "Y is better than X other CONTEMPORARY artist" happening in this thread. The question being raised here is about how various artists measure up in terms of longterm classical music appeal in the vein of someone like Mozart.

>>70253711
Did you really listen to her music? I highly doubt it. I bet you checked just few seconds from her top youtube videos. At least check these ones:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FTvanzhR6ok [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L_hFrJ-FM2o [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lhNxvoXOKcI [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bWam7u9uBNY [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UUe9rnucPoU [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iVt3FxE8F9w [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IsNaj6l5z8M [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q2_hBNQqEus [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E1cLVE1ZXqw [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUxCeVupemA [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy3FPRaeW3Y [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0_e_OWy694 [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jo_AIWO2AUQ [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7LmBM0mTafI [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=U-bKSyG0lng [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Fb_0LzBv894 [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X8v4vwWcIgI [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N_hOYZ90_iQ [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RvXkx3IcOi4 [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UiGHFYqeqck [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FsYt1-5MXT4 [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGLvUejoRb4 [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NpSZxfHBPWA [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aw8IwXr1DFI [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3REHoqNE_7U [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c2EJMd7ZN7w [Embed]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cAKcox2IIGU [Embed]

And tell me how all of them are pop songs.

>>70252336
>they're just boring kitschy pop songs
I'm betting you'd say the exact same thing about the Beatles... who are pretty much the epitome of 20th century classical music to be (like it or not.)

>>70253544
Me too, it finally clicked>>70253544

>>70253856
Could you elaborate? And, as I asked previously, what about Radiohead?

Is your criterion music that will be enjoyed and influential long after the death of its creator?

>>70253856
hearty kekk

>>70253856
It's true that I don't care for the Beatles (I prefer the Kinks).

>>70252367
Mostly only familiar with them through their work with Scott Walker (my 2nd favorite living musician fwiw) and I have limited internet access atm, so take this for what it's worth.
They're the harsh noise aspects of heavy metal mixed with the classical expansiveness of classical orchestral music. but that seems to be about it. It lacks anything discernible to bridge that disparity, which is a real problem in terms of attracting/retaining new casual listeners for decades to come. It's like a shower faucet that has only two settings: scalding hot or freezing cold. Not everyone's coup of tea.

File: adorno_theodor.jpg (22KB, 340x284px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 340x284px

>pop-"""""""""""music""""""""""" is music

>>70253804
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qGLvUejoRb4
gross

pop singers should never attempt to sing real music

File: a37e631a2645fe44182e1bbdc330444c.jpg (159KB, 647x627px) Image search: [Google]

159KB, 647x627px

>>70254491
>divine Ave Maria cover
>the pleb thinks it's gross
Pearls before swines.

>>70254490
this

File: modern shits.png (530KB, 2865x1991px) Image search: [Google]

530KB, 2865x1991px

>>70248269
yes.

Obviously not all of these are alive - Ives, Schoenberg etc. just look at the ones who are.

>>70254585
why are grimes fans so volatile? If anybody even suggests that they dislike her music they freak out. I can't think of any other fanbase as obnoxious, except maybe a few jam bands.

>>70254837
poly put your trip on

>>70254837
Terrible chart terrible taste.

>>70253488
EXCELLENT mood/task music (similar story to what I said about Animal Collective >>70252664 ) which is to say that imo their music is fantastic for inspiring a very specific sort of mood (it's great music for listening to while making visual art desu) but that itself ends up limiting its appeal (which - once again - is problematic in attracting the sort of long-term listener interest that inspires a musical body of work to be remember for hundreds of years after.)
I also have a personal pet peeve with the lack of rhythmic structure so often seen in their songs. They have excellent spacey, harmonic goodness going on in their music, but without some sort of strong, steady pulse to keep it grounded, the whole thing often ends up coming across as spacey spaciousness piled on top of spaciousness - like a ake entirely made of icing.

Imo Atoms for Peace's music is actually significantly better than Radiohead, because it is the wonderful spacey sound of Radiohead mixed with the rhythmic/percussive aspect of RHCP. It's essentially Radiohead with steady dance beats - a great combination since it helps balance the arrangement of sound.

>>70253856
>>70251175
It's been a while since I've seen baits of such quality.

>>70254837
>Ferneyhough, Kurtág, Psathas etc.
Random noises and zero craftsmanship. I know this is you, poly.

>>70254967
>Random noises and zero craftsmanship
top pleb lol

>>70254952
feel free to post better contemporary classical music

>>70254962
Thanks for the input. It clarified what I wanted to know about your criteria.

A certain mainstream appeal seems to be very important to you wrt to this analysis, but you don't seem to deny the quality per se of artists that very consciously make different choices.

>>70255003
clearly you haven't listened to everything in >>70253804

>>70255033
>contemporary classical music
>classical music
>classical

>>70254962
>>70255030
If I may add: even though you seem to prefer this kind of mainstream balance.

>>70253892
>Is your criterion music that will be enjoyed and influential long after the death of its creator?
Yes. Whose music will continue to be remembered/listened to/talked about in academic circles long after they themselves have passed into legend and memory.

>>70255082
It'll probably just be the latest atonal concert music, just saying

>>70255003
> top pleb lol
I didn't expect anything else.
Here. you might enjoy this unironically.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN7ghZVZTr0

>>70253856
>Beatles
>who are pretty much the epitome of 20th century classical
not in any way, shape or form. They are popular music through and through. You have to be a trained composer to write classical / art music.

File: richarddjames.jpg (66KB, 940x798px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 940x798px

Unironically, RDJ.

t. former composition student at vienna conservatory

>>70255161
Stockhausen outdid Aphex in the are of electronic music in the late 50s, using far inferior equipment.

You have to at least be a trained composer to get to Mozart's level. Even then few get close.

>>70254912
>generalizing the behaviors of select individuals to an entire group
Making generalizations is bad anon. It just provides fodder more more stupid arguing.

>>70248446
are you Mozart?

>>70248269
There are plenty living virtuosi that excel in technicality and musicality.
There is simply no demand for "new classical music" which of course is saddening.

>>70255161
>bleep bloop sounds

>>70255274
>There is simply no demand for "new classical music" which of course is saddening.
contemporary music ensembles and those in the classical sphere would disagree.

>>70255161
Aphex and Grimes

>>70254962
Steve Reich took an interest in Radiohead, and I've read some stuff about their major/minor chord mixing. They don't use danceable tempos very often for a rock band but the only song that pops into my head that I can't figure out the rhythm of is Pyramid Song.

File: 1459060102836.gif (2MB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 300x300px

>>70251175
>Grimes. Completely unironically

>>70255299
Is this the classical sphere you're talking about ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WN7ghZVZTr0
Or rather this ?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=37ajOyhcl_c

File: 1480718309145.png (622KB, 552x701px) Image search: [Google]

622KB, 552x701px

>>70255468
Not that anon, but what's the problem? She's really great. She's also controversial on /mu/ but in 10 years she will be regarded as an art pop legend like Bjork and Kate Bush.

>>70255538
>in 10 years she will be regarded as an art pop legend like Bjork and Kate Bush.
maybe, and?

>>70255538
Bjork actually has talent though. She can really sing and write a good song.

Plus Bjork continues to evolve and work hard. Let us know when grimes releases an album that is purely vocal, with inuit choirs, mike patton and rahzel doing beatboxing.

Grimes is hardly known right now, in 10 years she wont even register.

>>70255299
>truly a successor to the musical accomplishments of the last 400 years
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=71hNl_skTZQ
Don't make me post more.

>>70251077

double 7 confirms it

>>70255134
You're completely missing the point, anon. Classical music is just a random collection of previous era's popular music works that - through sheer ingenuity on the composer's part - have managed to stay popular among listeners long after the composer's death.

Mozart's music isn't classical because he happened to write it for only analog instruments (eg. orchestras, opera singers, and the like.) It is classical because it has stayed popular with audiences long after his death (think in terms of the way the word classic is used in common speech - eg. "That's a classic!".) Assuming the Beatles' music still gets significant airplay 40+ years from now (ie. far enough in the future that no one is alive who is old enough to remember it as being something new) it will indeed be every bit as much classical music in the holier-than-though hoity-toity sense as Mozart is considered to be now. Assuming that it is indeeed still played then - which I honestly think is extremely likely.

>>70255577
>Bjork actually has talent though.
And Grimes doesn't? She's basically a one woman band. Bjork needs a lot of people to work for her, Grimes is doing everying by herself. The latter is more impressive.

>Plus Bjork continues to evolve and work hard.
And Grimes doesn't? She's one of the hardest working musicians.

>Let us know when grimes releases an album that is purely vocal, with inuit choirs, mike patton and rahzel doing beatboxing.
So, she needs to release some eccentric pretentious crap in order to be considered good by you? Whatever, dude.

>Grimes is hardly known right now, in 10 years she wont even register.
Good joke. She's not mainstream like Bjork, but she's known by almost everyone with a good taste in music. Including Joanna Newsom.

>Interviewer: What young artists do you feel an affinity with? I heard you're a Kendrick fan.
>Joanna Newsom: I loved the latest Bjork album, I'm excited about the idea of Grimes. I haven't wrapped my head around the record. I find her so compelling and so unlike anybody else and so incredibly talented, skilled, and fun. I love her. I met her in LA a few months ago, she told me something along the lines of, "I grew up listening to your music". I will say, it made me feel really old for about five minutes, then it made me feel really happy. I was like well, I guess I'm old now, but that's okay because this awesome and amazing young musician likes my music and said that it was special to her when she was younger, so that's great.
https://i-d.vice.com/en_au/article/life-after-whimsy-joanna-newsom-is-no-ethereal-creature

>>70255824
Does that make the "happy birthday to you" song classical music?

>>70255872
*doing everything

>>70255824
Some people underestimate the level of competition in show business that one has to overcome through skill to write as many longlasting songs as the Beatles did, anon.

>>70255872
Joanna Newsom only has one good song anyway

>>70248269
come to brazil

>>70255674
those are better blips and bloops than autechre or aphex twin could come up with

>>70255971
Okay, little guy.

Have you not heard of Jay Z?

>>70255258
no, this really does encompass all Grimes fans on this website

>>70256041
you know which one it is too lol

>>70255824
Beatles is not classical music though.

In the classical world, much more important things were happening in the 60s. Stockhausen, Ligeti, Penderecki, Dutilleux, Lutosławski, Shostakovich, Crumb, etc.

Popular music has always existed alongside art music.

Notice how the popular music of the 17th century no longer exists or is remembered, but yet Bach is played every day. Thats what the beatles will be like in 300 years. They wont even register.

>>70255872
>she's known by almost everyone with a good taste in music
imo good taste would not be listening to popular music. "good taste" is subjective. I think you have shit taste for liking grimes, you probably think I have shit taste for only listening to art music and traditional music, and completely boycotting popular music.
Nothing grimes has made warrants the label "impressive"

>>70256220
That's just your opinion. IMO your taste sucks because you dislike her.

>>70256258
hence why taste is subjective and should not be bought up when discussing music.

Grimes can't sing, can't write songs, is a shit producer. Not sure why she was even brought up in a thread like this. She's not a trained composer, nor does she have anything to do with art music.

>>70256220
most people today would rather listen to 17th century "popular" music than Bach. just as they'd rather listen to the popular music of the last century over any classical music, as they do.

>>70256298
"most people" does not make something good.

"Most people" enjoy listening to justin beiber and taylor swift.

The point is that popular music is disposable, with no long lasting merit. The main reason most people listen to popular music is marketing. with enough marketing, you can make anything popular.

The main reason people listened to popular music in the 17th century is because thats what was playing in the tavern. You didn't have a choice. Likewise today - popular music is what's played on TV and radio and at clubs. Uneducated people dont really have a choice.

this thread is only bait
sage

Does the rock genre officially being declared dead by Gene Simmons threaten the long-term relevance of The Beatles? I don't expect Young Thug and people like him going forward are going to be namedropping Paul McCartney as an influence. Especially after he dies. It's mostly rock musicians who do this.

>>70256511
Who gives a shit what Gene Simmons thinks?

>>70255881
Anon, that - along with Mendelssohn's Wedding March - are the two single-most classical pieces of music in the entire western world (and even beyond.)

>>70255912
>Some people underestimate the level of competition in show business that one has to overcome through skill
ABSOLUTELY. although natural intuition has everything as much to do with it as trained skill in these sorts of situations. Music listeners don't have a tendency to gravitate towards forms of classical music because they've been trained that "classical music" is inherently better (despite what you have heard.) They get drawn to it because it has a higher tendency to sound appealing to people who don't know much of anything about music.

By the same token, the best creators of music are those people with a natural ear for what sort of music makes a lasting impression on people. And trained skill about the creation of music only really comes into play in an important way when it comes to a musician's ability to translate their natural intuitions into music on a regular basis. Thus why it is now perfectly feasible for an extremely intuitively talented musician - bolstered by modern technology - to go about making great music on their own with little more than the most basic understanding of formal music theory.

>>70248269
ableton live 9

>>70256283
That's complete bullshit. She's doing something right if she's so appreciated by critics, fans, other artists. You, being a pleb, couldn't get into her music.

>>70256568
My only disagreement is that I believe intuition is informally trained as well. Excellent posts, anon.

>>70256568
Don't forget about Wagner's Bridal Chorus and Pachelbel's Canon

>>70256220
>Bach
Anon, Bach's music was the definition of well-written pop music from his era. You know all those hymns, variations and the which he wrote that get played all the time? A sizable portion of them were just more polished arrangements of popular drinking songs (aka the direct functional equivalent of what people refer to as "pop music" today.)

Popular music and classical music have always been just different experiential takes on the same thing (music people enjoy listening to.) This whole idea of their being a "classical musical world" independent from popular music is just a misnomer brought about during the last 150 years or so because of rampant academic institutionalization of music on the collegiate level.

>>70248269
Are there any clasical music composers at all?

>>70256642
>intuition is informally trained
Heavens yes. The mark of a truly great musician is having a well-trained ear, and the way one's ear gets trained is by listening to music - LOTS of it. That is how a person like Grimes - someone with virtually no knowledge of music from a theoretical perspective, could go from singing solo in public for the very first time to releasing whole albums of heavily layered music entirely composed by herself in the space of 3 years. Because prior to that she had spent something like 17+ years being under constant, extensive exposure to music as a listener - 11 years of that being because of studying ballet (a physical art which involves listening and rhythmically responding to music on a constant basis) and the rest because of personal preference.

You don't have to know that the 2nd from the last note in "Happy Birthday" doubles as both the 5th scale degree of the V chord in the tonic key and the supertonic of the tonic's scale in order to realize that you should probably go down by a whole step in order to finish the song. You just listen to it first a few times in order to get a feel for it, and then sing the note at the end that makes it feel like the song has ended.

>>70257204
Only in retrospect.

>>70256838
>Bach's music was the definition of well-written pop music from his era
Except it wasn't popular music. He did sometimes include simply melodies from older church pieces, and some claim he used the occasional popular melody (somewhat hard to prove as little to no popular music exists from the era), but Bach's music is art music / classical through and through.

There is a classical music independent from popular music. Always has been since ancient times. There was high ancient Persian art music, and low ancient Persian street music.

There are a large group of people who primarily listen to classical music. They are the classical music world (as well as the performers, composers, conductors and musicologists). My guess is you just assume it doesn't exist.

>>70248269
John Williams and Sufjan
Suf probably won't be as influential though

>>70256511
Rock music will last longer, the quicker we forget about Gene Simmons.

>>70257809
>Except it wasn't popular music.
Yes it was. It was just well-written.

>Bach's music is art music
Of course it was - artistic value and popular appeal aren't exclusive properties of music.

>/ classical
Not when he was writing it. In Bach's time classical music would've been primarily a capella vocal music. Bach is most famous and highly revered for having composed music that incorporated the two most technologically advanced musical instruments of his era (both of which he happened to be a virtuosic player of): the large-scale pipe organ and the equal-tempered klavier.

>There is a classical music independent from popular music. Always has been since ancient times.
high ancient Persian art music: popular music among the upper class
low ancient Persian street music: popular music among the lower class
Both were forms of pop music in their time. They were just popular with different groups of people.
Pop music is just music that is popular.
Classical music is just pop music that endures the test of time.

>My guess is you just assume it doesn't exist.
Oh, it exists alright (I know because I'm a multiple conservatory-trained classical musician with extensive performance experience on several continents many high-profile performance venues, including Carnegie Hall.) That doesn't change the fact that its entire existence is based on a misnomer.

>>70258554
What's your main instrument, anon? And what are some erudite music pieces you love?

>>70258554
Another question: is it best for a late starter who cares about sharing the fun with friends to take up the guitar, as playing complex pieces on the piano is unlikely to please the average person?

File: folder.jpg (178KB, 888x888px) Image search: [Google]

178KB, 888x888px

these guys

>>70251063
this the guy behind death spell omega its probably mozart tier

Idiots. Music is subjective. No musician is more "talented" than another musician.

>>70258743
Depends entirely on your target audience desu. In this day and age Guitar is probably the better bet (although synth is really starting to take off as a general use tool - even in more traditional "classical" music circles.)

>>70258554
>Bach being popular for his day
Lol no, js bach's work would have been largely forgotten had it not been for popular late classical/romantic composers who championed his work. The brothers bach on the other hand were very popular in their day

>>70258554
>Yes it was
That doesn't prove your point. Back up your claims. By all definitions, Bach's music was art music. Music that "focuses on formal styles, invites technical and detailed deconstruction and criticism, and demands focused attention from the listener"

I think you're confusing popularity with the definition of popular music in the art/popular/traditional axiom. Bach's music was popular, but it was not "popular music" as we currently define it - that was played in taverns and by street minstrels and the equivalent of modern day pop radio and club music.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_genre#The_art.2Fpopular.2Ftraditional_distinction

All kinds of music have a popularity among someone, so the term is meaningless on its own. You should stick with the definition above, then we can move forward.

So you admit there is a classical world and it is separate from the popular music world. Good.

File: 1362185468_Kool-AD-Okayplayer-interview2.jpg (182KB, 600x672px) Image search: [Google]

182KB, 600x672px

>>70248269

Kool AD

>>70260078
>bach's work would have been largely forgotten had it not been for popular late classical/romantic composers who championed his work.
Ie. he was a popular composer in the context of his day. Remember, this is loooooooooooooong before the era of recorded music, record sales, or even distribution of musical scores (remember - in his day and age when you were lucky if you could read, really lucky if you even owned your own Bible, and most likely Bach himself or one of his peers/employers if you had sufficient knowledge of music notation and access to the instruments necessary to even know what it sounded like) existed as viable contributive streams to a composer's popularity.

>>70260172
>it was not "popular music" as we currently define it
Here is what you are not understanding in this conversation. The definition of "popular music" to which you are referring is fundamentally flawed because it is based on a long-standing false dichotomy which posits that artistic value and popular appeal are mutually exclusive. They aren't. Really good music CAN be both popular (to the order of being labeled "pop music") and contain artistic merit (to the order of being labeled "art music".) Thinking otherwise is an ages-old fallacy, as exemplified by the Mozart quote I included here >>70249845 (That's what the "golden mean" is that he is referring to - the principle that music can appeal to both popular tastes AND refined artistic criticisms simultaneously.)

Aphex Twin

>>70260172
[continuing from >>70260951 ]
The current divide between the "classical music world" and the "popular music world" is because of people falling pray to this false dichotomy, and it is the underlying reason why people tend to get the FALSE impression that classical music appreciation today is in much steeper decline than it ever has been before. Segregating "classical" music from "popular" music is the single greatest ailment afflicting the contemporary music scene because it ends up stifling both the existence of positive growth in the classical music canon and neuters popular music's ability to contain artistic merit.

Mozart understood this, fought against it by writing things such as his opera Die Zauberflöte (which capitalized on lowbrow appeal by being written in a musical form appropriate to performance in his era's equivalent of Broadway while at the same time capitalized on highbrow appeal through the inclusion of intensive philosophical themes regarding class distinctions and religious dogma) and ended up being remembered in death as being one of the single greatest musical composers in human history because of it. Musicians of today who have the presence of mind/artistic fortitude necessary to follow in his footsteps in that regard are the ones most likely to accomplish the same.

Lil Peep

File: tmp_24149-14837198153301650219223.png (287KB, 663x537px) Image search: [Google]

287KB, 663x537px

It's Billy Corgan isn't it?

>>70257204
Most Classical/ art music composers today are minimalists.

>>70253067
Art Angels has less interesting compositional work than the average Kate Perry hit song or every single track off Justin Bieber's last album. And I say this unironically

>>70260951
>>70261493
>>70261555
You're a bullshit artist and probably graduated from some ghetto ass college (if you studied music, as you've claimed, at all). There's no dichotomy at place, several popular (as in artists that enjoyed popularity in their lifetime) artists made into the Western canon. However, Bach wasn't writing popular music and that was never his intent. Most of his output is religious, traditional hymns or pieces ordered by patrons, meant for particular use. His main influences - Telemann, Buxtehude and Vivaldi - were all exclusively composing for consumption by the elites or the Church or as as formal exercises.

>>70262274
>There's no dichotomy at place
First of all, it's 'in place'.
So are you saying that Mozart is wrong?

>>70262274
>Most of his output is religious,
Anon, historically speaking sacred music is the sinlge-most popular type of refined music in human history.

>>70262328
Yes, many artists have made that crossover before. Liszt is a good example

>>70262367
It still is, as you've said yourself, "refined music" and didn't enjoy gigantic popularity. What makes Bach relevant to classical music is the genius of his compositions, period. Had he been able to enjoy massive popularity - which probably wasn't tenable both by socioeconomical factors and the technological factor - he would still be recognized as the undeniable giant he is.

>>70260951
This still doesn't make Bach popular music.

>>70261555
We dont need to segregate classical from popular music, people do it themselves. They dont go to classical concerts unless they actually like classical. Meanwhile popular music is all over the TV, radio, web, etc. so its an easy choice as to which concert to go to.

The dichotomy exists whether you like it or not, or whether you think it should or not.

Shouldn't you have better things to do than argue lost causes on 4chan? or did your music education leave you with lots of free time (ie. no job)

The melodic genius of Mozart is unparalleled. I don't think there are any living composers as talented as him

>>70249128
Aphex Twin

don't think Aphex Twin is the best living musician anymore, but he has to be the answer to this question

>>70262479
>many artists have made that crossover
...I'm going to assume that English isn't your first language, since this statement makes absolutely no sense in the context of this conversation so far.

>Liszt is a good example
Of what?

>didn't enjoy gigantic popularity.
Among upper-class potential patrons of musicians like Bach during his era? It most certainly did.

>>70262526
>This still doesn't make Bach popular music.
Yes it does. It just doesn't automatically make his music not "art music" because of that fact. Bach's music is great because it contains both great artistry and popularly appealing elements given who it was written for.

>They dont go to classical concerts unless they actually like classical.
Anon, prior to approximately 1880 there was no routine distinction between classical and popular music in the context of concert repertoire. Musicians were paid by patrons to put on concerts for audiences of people with the right social status or entrance fee necessary to attend. No musical segregation.

>The dichotomy exists
It categorically does not, since artistic merit and popular appeal are demonstrably NOT mutually exclusive.
For example, take the overall visual aesthetic of the following music video:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mfI1S0PKJR8
Would you consider what the dancers in this video are doing to be an example of high art or low art?

Bi Corg

>>70263095
Liszt enjoyed massive popularity during his lifetime, Bach didn't. How dense are you?

>Among upper-class potential patrons of musicians like Bach during his era? It most certainly did.
That doesn't make his work popular music.

>>70251382
shut up jishboy

>>70263095
u dumb. Maybe you should have paid attention at college

>>70252336
Mozart is boring and kitschy as well

>>70263095
With these definitions:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Music_genre#The_art.2Fpopular.2Ftraditional_distinction


Bach is art music. Its not really an argument. He is popular (for a composer), and his music is art music / classical.

>prior to approximately 1880 there was no routine distinction between classical and popular music
There actually was. Art music was performed for rich patrons by musicians they hired, or in churches, by musicians hired by the church. They played from scores, or in the case of chants, learned from scores and then memorized.
Everything else was popular and/or traditional music. Minstrels in taverns, musicians on the streets, guys playing hurdy-gurdy etc, all playing from memory or improvising.

>merit and popular appeal are demonstrably NOT mutually exclusive
Of course not, but that has very little to do with our definition of art music. Read the definitions above and familiarize yourself with them. They are the definitions we are basing our discussion on.

>>70248269
like most of them

>>70264067
Go to bed, Glenn Gould.

File: Prince_eNyD7R3[1].jpg (177KB, 790x395px) Image search: [Google]

177KB, 790x395px

pic related was the closest we had

File: 1481757532302.png (307KB, 843x622px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 843x622px

/thread

File: .....jpg (135KB, 1024x1119px) Image search: [Google]

135KB, 1024x1119px

>>70251063

>>70251527
haven't read the rest of the thread but this is a really dumb/questionable post

>>70264453
Yeah I'm not sure he even really gets what AE are about. There is more going on than just unparalleled sound design. He fails to acknowledge the generative algorithms they employ.

>>70259931
What synth do you recommend?

>>70259931
>>70265696
For casual performance with friends, do you prefer a hardware synth or a launchpad+laptop?

>>70252664
Like Grimes isn't even more like this, Art Angels is a very happy album.

>>70256220
I think you're wrong, you forget How different the times are. A lot of popular music back then was folk songs who werent written down, and there was no recording or mass commodifying of music.

>>70266336
Some of the songs were awesome: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LJ8uo8RDmqI

>>70266220
>Art Angels is a very happy album.
Only apparently. Read the lyrics.

e.g.

I, I've been thinking, I've been thinking
I, I could leave the world today
Everybody dies, we anoint their eyes and we dance like angels do
Writing out your name, little shapes that feign some knowledge of you

or

Oh, and I feel that nothing in life could ever be like this again
'Cause your love kept me alive and made me insane

or

When we were young, we used to live so close to it
And we were scared that you were beautiful
And when I peered over the edge and seen death, if we are always the same

>>70266621
Yes, I know. For me it is Absolutely the music and not the lyrics that dictate mood. I assume it's like this for most people.

>>70266680
It's also the criterion used by concertistanon itt.

>>70248269
I am definitely not as talented as Mozart at doing what Mozart did, however, I think I am as talented at what I do as Mozart or anyone else past a certain degree of passion.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=vKsioYo9bRg

>>70266932
>look how fast I go mom!

>>70266953
Look at me mom I can make fun of people on the internet.

>>70256601
Not him, but do you know music theory?

Unironically Brian Wilson.
Bernstein called SMiLE one of the greatest works of all time.

>>70262526
>This still doesn't make Bach popular music.
He's one of the most popular artists in the world. Is anyone that never heard of him? So, his music is popular.

>>70262023
And unironically you are completely wrong. Ridiculously wrong. I can't take you seriously if you say such crap.

File: brian wilson.png (815KB, 790x530px) Image search: [Google]

815KB, 790x530px

>implying it's anyone other than this man

>>70269526
>>70268216
>DUDE MODULATIONS AND VOCAL HARMONIES LMAO
he's a kid compared to even the most entry level classical composer

File: 1462314643434.gif (559KB, 262x200px) Image search: [Google]

559KB, 262x200px

Damn, this is some God-tier bait

>>70269699
>bait?
how?

File: 1480882914151.png (77KB, 752x612px) Image search: [Google]

77KB, 752x612px

>>70249937

>>70250819
>Philip Glass....
no.

>>70253067
Literally the most overrated artist frequently mention on /mu

>>70255064
>not realising people use classical as a broad term also.

>>70255306
only Aphex.

>>70263199
>That doesn't make his work popular music.
Yes it does, in the context of his era.

Everyone who thinks Grimes is as good as Mozart.. kys plz.

>>70264003
>u dumb.
I like your sense of humor.

File: nt0vm22PRG1spsojg_400.jpg (20KB, 306x306px) Image search: [Google]

20KB, 306x306px

>>70248269
>mfw people exist that unironically think Grimes and the beatles can compare to Bach and Mozart

I knew /mu/ was pleb central, but holy shit

>>70264076
>Bach is art music.
Bach is popular art music. Was then, is now. Pop and art are not mutually exclusive properties in any art-form by definition of the words themselves. Stop being a Wikipedia drone and start thinking critically for yourself.

>Of course not, but that has very little to do with our definition of art music.
Because the definition to which you are so beholden is flawed to the extreme.

>>70270937
They think that fucking around with a synth doing same old music but with new noises is comparable to breaking down the rules of melody, harmony and structure.
Leave them be, they'll grow up out of it.

>>70270977
>>70269452
t. people who don't know what "popular music" actually means

>>70270897
>>70271364
>>70270937
actually, i am a classically trained maracas player and i disagree

>>70271364
>breaking down the rules of melody, harmony and structure.
making the same old sounds but slightly rearranged

>>70271459
I'm a classically trained triangle player and I disagree with you.

>>70271493
Epic meme.
Now you can proceed to kill yourself.
Grimes will be irrelevant in 10 years tops.

>>70271459
>>70271493
>>70271500
i am a classically trained electroswing composer and i beg to differ
please check my soundcloud

>>70271538
>implying she is relevant now

>>70270779
She's underrated on /mu/ (considered "just a popstar"). Plus, half of /mu/ hates her a lot, so that balances the very positive opinions anyway.

>>70270811
Both AFX and Claire

>>70270897
You're an idiot.

>>70270937
>implying everyone should have the same opinions
Problem?

please stop feeding the autist attention

>>70253804
Was I supposed to hear something special?

File: 1481715078007.png (5KB, 467x87px) Image search: [Google]

5KB, 467x87px

>>70271538
>Grimes will be irrelevant in 10 years tops.
You wish. She will be relevant for a long time. Better be prepared to see her mentioned on this board for many years to come. The real relevancy test will be when she will release a new album: will the people care about it? Will be ignored or super-discussed?

>>70271576
>the most discussed artist on /mu/
>not relevant
Pick 1

>>70271785
>/mu/
>relevant

>>70271751
Yes. You didn't? You must be a narrow minded pleb. Sorry, but no sorry.

>>70271770
>being mentioned on /mu/
>relevant
lmao

>>70271720
>>70271742
>>70271751
>>70271770
>>70271785
>>70271805
>>70271809
sorry, but i am a classically trained shitposter and grimes is a genius

>>70251997
Scooter.

>>70271440
t. person who thinks popular music has to have quotes around it

>>70271805
>>70271816
>4chan
>not relevant
Um... have you seen the news headlines today? Just sayin'

>>70272101
>he fell for the "memes made Trump presidency" meme

>>70272049
are you really this stupid?

>>70271805
>>70271816
We're talking about this board, isn't it? Outside of it, she's even more relevant. Leaving aside social media stats and Youtube stats, just very recently David Byrne confessed this...

>I started collecting pictures of Grimes...
http://www.brooklynvegan.com/david-byrne-details-his-upcoming-joan-of-arc-musical-tickets-on-sale/

>>70251997
Underworld, FSOL and Orbital are much better than Autechre.

>>70272215
>david byrne
Irrelevant too.

>>70272291
You must be kidding. How about Gorillaz then? They included her song Realiti in a special mixtape: http://pitchfork.com/news/70656-gorillaz-noodle-mixes-grimes-empress-of-laurie-anderson-more-in-kick-ass-women-playlist-listen/

Or how about The Avalanches?
>As you grow older, you enter your thirties, you have to fight to keep that spirit alive. It’s easy to slip into routine and lose that spark. That’s part of the music making process, and the role new music plays, being inspired by hearing a new artist and how they go about something. Even if it’s completely stylistically different – the way Grimes just owns her shit, does it all herself with this DIY thing going on. You need that inspiration every day when you sit down to work, to wake you up and shake you up and break you out of your routine.

Or Joanna Newsom?
>I loved the latest Bjork album, I'm excited about the idea of Grimes. I haven't wrapped my head around the record. I find her so compelling and so unlike anybody else and so incredibly talented, skilled, and fun. I love her. I met her in LA a few months ago, she told me something along the lines of, "I grew up listening to your music". I will say, it made me feel really old for about five minutes, then it made me feel really happy. I was like well, I guess I'm old now, but that's okay because this awesome and amazing young musician likes my music and said that it was special to her when she was younger, so that's great.

Like it or not, she's relevant and she will become a legend in max 10 years. Screencap this.

>>70272566
All will be forgotten in due time, or do you remember every single artist that had a hit album in the 80s?

>>70272632
Grimes is not like "every single artist that had a hit album in the x decade". She has a strong identity and a strong catalogue that will make her stand out for a long time in the same way Kate Bush and Bjork did. I'm 100% sure she's the real deal, not a flash in the pan. She's just too consistently great.

File: XxMvj0E[1].jpg (132KB, 600x653px) Image search: [Google]

132KB, 600x653px

>>70272566
10 years from now Grimes will be even more ugly and - yes - forgotten, except by a few autists. A thousand years from now people will still be listening to Mozart

>>70272239
maybe that would be true if they had all stopped making music in the early 90s

>>70272719
If you think Grimes will be remembered and admired the same way as Mozart you're one delusional autist.

>>70272721
>this pleb actually believes this
There's not a single reason why she will be forgotten in 10 years. She's not a one trick pony, but a vibrant artist that always finds a way to make exciting music.

BTW why do you have that 'shopped picture saved on your stupid hard disk, autist? Get a life dipshit.

>>70272719
>>70272815
It's like a kpop autist only the artist is ugly as fuck.

>>70272755
Did I say something about Mozart, idiot?

>>70272855
Why are you on this thread you retard.

File: 1479008472559.jpg (108KB, 640x640px) Image search: [Google]

108KB, 640x640px

>>70272838
And you refuted nothing. Checkmate, autist.

>>70269552
>he's a kid compared to
Berstein would disagree with you, and i'm inclined to think that he's right.

>the long con bait
wow, im actually impressed

>>70272959
>American
>classical music
Pick only one.

>>70272891
Same question for you retard. Grimes was mentioned here (for a reason, because she's actually a music genius), so that's why she's discussed here.

The OP's request was
>Are there any living composers as talented as Mozart?
The answer is yes. Grimes.

>>70270977
Anon, if you don't mind, I'd like to know what synth you rec.

>>70272998
Grimes is barely a composer, even less so a talented one

>>70253067
>bach
>"constantly variating sound"
>implying timbral variation is what's important about bach
>literally what is counterpoint

>>70272982
This has nothing to do with the OP

>>70273023
>Grimes is barely a composer,
A composer creates music. And she does all of her music on her own.

>even less so a talented one
Shitty bait.

>>70272998
>Grimes was mentioned here
Yeah, because for a board about music, there's a worrying percentage of uneducated teenagers posting here.
That's the only reason why trite like Grimes gets so praised around here, her vain DIY attitude and faux originality appeals to insecure young people that want to feel unique.

To the verbose autist defending grimes: thank you for all the new pasta

>A composer creates music.
a composer writes music

>>70273116
Not that guy, but explain to me in musical terminology why Grimes is a talented composer and a ''genius''. Not being aggressive, i'm just curious.

>>70273238
because
she like
comes up with all this new sounds
and she does everything by herself
and she's a qt
so she must be a genius

>>70273238
Anon considers her music the best current contribution of popularity and innovation combined.

>>70273315
But how does that substitute for genius?

>>70273315
explain what exactly is innovative about grimes

>>70273238
The melody of Genesis is, literally, she going up and down the black keys of a keyboard

>>70273315
But popularity is a non-factor when discussing geniality.
Plenty of composers died in misery or relatively unknown.

>>70273203
>A composer (Latin compōnō; literally "one who puts together") is a person who CREATES or writes music, which can be vocal music (for a singer or choir), instrumental music (e.g., for solo piano, string quartet, wind quintet or orchestra) or music which combines both instruments and voices (e.g., opera or art song, which is a singer accompanied by a pianist).

>>70273387
Notice how in neither of those examples they cite shitty dreampop.

>>70273387
So my 1 year old nephew that whenever I throw a toy keyboard into his crib will randomly hit the keys with his fist is a composer too?

>>70273387
what is that, wikipedia? not an argument
also, define "creating music"

>>70273369
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dtpJgxt6p9Q
also pay attention to her off-key singing and general lack of talent

>>70273238
That classical musician anon already said why ITT. Read it.

>>70273369
It's just the intro. And the fact she did such a memorable melody using only the black keys proves it that she's a genius. Try doing something 1/10 as good and see how hard it is.

>>70273369
Prokofiev wrote his first ever sonata just by hitting the white keys of the keyboard when he was 8.
Only he had the decency of never publishing it because he realized how banally awful it was.

>>70273480
Please explain in your own words, if you would be so kind.

>>70273346
If it's the best in the extremely competitive field of music, it takes genius.

>>70273350
Ask anon to do that. I'm simply telling you what can be inferred from his posts.

>>70273380
Enduring popularity is a better measure. Anon perceives qualities in her music, like the emotional spectrum it covers and how, that make her music likely to survive her.

I concluded he means a sufficient number of 'mainstream elements' and 'versatility' by that.

He also doesn't seem to discount music that won't be remembered as much as hers, in his evaluation, due to weird aesthetic choices. His claim is that that kind of music won't be remembered in the same way Mozart's is.

>>70273468
it's just a simple 4/4 beat with at most 3 layered voices on top.

>tfw you realize OP and the grimesfag are the same person

>>70273480
>That classical musician anon already said why
Did he? :^)

>>70260479
nah even he wouldnt agree with that

more like Sun Ra

>>70273415
Do you really expect to name every single genre/style?

>shitty dreampop.
>spotted the turbopleb

>>70273445
Wikipedia is more relevant than all your shitposting. They have sources for almost everything. And even a pleb like you is using it. Just saying.

https://www.cnet.com/news/study-wikipedia-as-accurate-as-britannica/

>>70270977
Learn the definitions son.

Talking about actual popularity and what is considered art or not is meaningless. Everything is popular to someone, and all music is technically art. They are meaningless terms when discussing the difference between art music and popular music. "art music" and "popular music" are specific labels for specific types of music. Learn the definitions and you wont come across as so dense.

>>70273480
No, he didn't, he just said she was a genius because instead of horizontal development he focused on harmonies and timbral experimentation while ignoring the fact that that same thing was being done way more creatively decades before Grimes even existed.
It's like he's basing all western Art music on classical/baroque periods and ignoring contemporary art music that exhibits all the attributes he gave Grimes but were done earlier or more extensively.

>>70273426
Yes. A shitty composer, but a composer. In the same way if you paint, you're a painter.

>>70273596
So he's barely a composer, just like Grimes?

>>70273488
Explain why people love Genesis so much, despite the apparently simple melody? Maybe there's something special about it...

>>70255971
Which one? Erin?

>>70273574
>Wikipedia is more relevant than all your shitposting.
according to who?
>And even a pleb like you is using it.
what the hell are you even talking about?

by the way, you didn't answer my question: what is "creating music" supposed to mean

>>70273387
A composer is someone who works with scores, attends composition workshops, has pieces performed by live musicians (most often not the composer themselves, although performer-composers do exist), and has studied the traditions of classical music.

Pop artists are not composers, even if they create music. They do not write scores, they are not formally trained, they do not primarily get other people to play their music.
If they do have live performers that play from a score during their performances, they almost always have to go through an orchestrator or an actual composer to get the scores prepared for the performers.

>>70273648
People love shit what's your point?
The uneducated masses don't like what they can't comprehend, that's why they flock to songs with simple rhythms, banal melodies, a singing voice telling them what to feel, and preferably no thematic development at all since that requires thought and attention.
All qualities shown masterfully shown in Genesis.

Kanye West

>>70273596
composer != performer != musician

composer : performer = architect : construction worker

while "musician" is a broader term, like "builder"

>>70273468
wtf she can't even play the keyboard
how does she writes songs?

>>70273618
>being this mean
He's barely a composer but not like her. The difference is that she has talent. She makes great music that it's beloved by millions. As you know, music taste is subjective and you can't objectively measure the quality of a piece of music. What it matters is the music's impact on listeners. The impact of your 1 year old nephew's music is disgust, the impact of her music is generally adoration and awe.

>>70273759
That's bullshit said by an elitist like you.

Did you see this?
>The golden mean, the truth, is no longer recognized or valued. To win applause one must write stuff so simple that a coachman might sing it, or so incomprehensible that it pleases simply because no sensible man can comprehend it.
— Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart, writing to his father in 1782

A great musician must find the middle ground between accessible and experimental. Bach did that, Mozart did that, Beethoven did that, Grimes did that.

>>70273869
Last shot at asking for a synth rec, kek. Thread is about to go down.

>>70273789
>she has talent
not him but thats debatable. I would say she doesn't have talent. lifeless sub-par pop music. Not even on par with well written pop, and way below actual classical composers in terms of talent.

Knowledge actually allows your natural talent more options, and gives you good work ethic. Imagine if grimes studied composition, had singing lessons and learned production from some pros. She might be able to produce something of worth... might.

>>70273844
>A great musician have the find the middle ground between accessible and experimental.
[citation needed]

also
>i can't tell the difference between necessary and sufficient condition

>>70273468
>>70273788
That was a mesmerizing performance, despite the small flaws.

FYI that was barely 2-3 years after she released her debut album. She improved her live performances since then.

>how does she writes songs?
>never heard of DAWs like GarageBand or Ableton Live

>>70273869
grimes is neither accessible nor experimental though.

>>70273935
What budget?

>>70273993
Around 500 bucks. But please tell me about stuff worth dreaming about as well.

>>70273844
All that quote says is that for a song to have massive appeal you just have to make it so simple that everyone can enjoy it, which was exactly my point.
The later part of that quote doesn't apply today, if you make atonal, dissonant and weird music you'll get a following around some artsy circles but the mainstream will largely ignore you.

There's nothing particularly creative about Grimes, melodically and harmonically she's not anything special, she's not a good singer, and the attribute her fans ceaselessly talk about her: her timbral variety is way overplayed, artists like Russiolo, Stockhausen or Penderecki also experimented with timbres (hell, you could even go way back to the French impressionists like Ravel or Debussy to find some degree of timbral experimentation although not that outrageous), only they did that almost a hundred years earlier and without compromising harmony or melody.

>>70274018
Don't focus on any single aspect, it's how you put the package together, the sum of your qualities, including, yes, your popular appeal, that matters in the end.

Considering the declining importance of universities, contemporary erudite music composers might very well become historical curiosities.

>>70273947
That's just your opinion. If you knew something about well composed music, you'd recognize her talent.

>lifeless sub-par pop music
That's bullshit and you know it. No one would care about her if she did "lifeless sub-par pop music". I never heard a single popstar making songs like this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qsbiyvpel54 or this one https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hy3FPRaeW3Y Not a single one!

Just admit it that you don't like catchy music.

>>70273976
Thanks, you proved my point:
>the middle ground between accessible and experimental

>>70274137
if you were a classically trained bongo player like me you'd recognize she is sub-par pop music

>>70274097
Not really, popular appeal is largely ignored when it comes the time of technically discuss the intricaties of a composer work.
For every massively popular composer like Liszt that lived, there were 5 composers that were largely irrelevant in life and died in poverty (Mozart for example was considered largely a curiosity in life, and by the time of his death he was broke and his popularity waning), if we can remember and praise them is because their work, their music is worthy of study.
Academic universities didn't meme Beethoven and Bach to fame because they happened to be popular at that era, they did that because their work was revolutionary, even if we don't know much (relatively speaking) about music on Bach era, his contributions to counterpoint and harmony are still vigent today, and the same applies to Beethoven, we remember him today because he revolutionized the entire genre of the piano sonata and he wrote some of the most dense and rich orchestral symphonies ever, their popularity never were a factor in all of this, their music was the sole reason they were studied in the first place.
Grimes music doesn't hold to scrutiny because there's nothing here really worth discussing, I can't see the future of music being influenced in a big way by her music.

File: Minilogue-large.jpg (109KB, 750x458px) Image search: [Google]

109KB, 750x458px

>>70274014
Get a Korg Minilogue. You'll love it. Great interface/design and sound. And it's a damn Korg.

https://www.sweetwater.com/store/detail/Minilogue
https://www.amazon.com/Korg-minilogue-4-voice-Analog-Synthesizer/dp/B01AMNWF6Q

Also take a look here too:
http://synthesizersanctum.com/index.php/2016/05/26/best-synthesizers-under-500/

>But please tell me about stuff worth dreaming about as well.
Sequential Circuits Prophet 12. You could make whole interesting pieces with it. I'd buy it if I'd have the money: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vGyPc8OY4QA

And lots of classics: ARP 2600, Moog 55, ARP Odyssey, Moog Minimoog, Korg MS-20, Roland SH-101, Access Virus, Clavia Nord Lead, EMS VCS3, Sequential Circuits Prophet 5, etc.

>>70274403
Thanks for the recs, anon!

>>70248269
Brian Wilson

>>70274442
You're welcome. Watch some Youtube videos with the synths that are you're interested in to see exactly how they look like, how they're operated and how they sound.

>>70274476
Aren't 3 octaves too few for performance, anon?

>>70274494
It should be enough for most pieces. Most decent synths have an octave changer button anyway (on the same keyboard you could play all notes).

>The oscillators offer four octave settings that prove to be 16’, 8’, 4’ and 2’ when the independent tuning knobs for each oscillator (which offer detune as fine as ±1 cent and as coarse as ±1 octave) are set to zero and the global octave switch is set to the middle of its five positions. Well, that’s not quite true, because the sawtooth wave sits an octave above the pulse and triangle waves unless you modify it using waveshaping (which we’ll come to in a moment).

>But, even ignoring this anomaly, sounds can range from almost subsonic at the bottom end to almost supersonic at the top, even when confined to the Minilogue’s three–octave keyboard.

You have a wide range of sounds.

>>70274623
Understood. Thanks again!

>>70274494
You can transpose the octaves with switchs.
A synth is not a piano, you're not supposed to perform solo pieces with it, at least, not in "real time" (as in, not without use of looping and playback stuff).

>>70274660
Can it capture and loop vocals?

>>70274660
>A synth is not a piano
Obviously. A key on a synth could play a different sound depending on the assigned setting. A piano key could play just the assigned note.

>you're not supposed to perform solo pieces with it, at least, not in "real time"
That's false. You could perform solo pieces very well. See this as an example: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vl4qjN1vMA8

>>70274137
> If you knew something about well composed music, you'd recognize her talent.
I'm a trained composer, have been studying music for 10 years, studied the scores of many masters, and been writing music for 15 years.
Grimes has no talent.

>That's bullshit and you know it
Nope, that's my opinion.
And yes, I dont like catchy music. "catchy" usually implies repeating very simple melodies. I prefer music that evolves over time.

File: grimes-fallon.jpg (86KB, 648x428px) Image search: [Google]

86KB, 648x428px

>>70274705
That's the sampler's job. Grimes is using a Roland SP-404 SX (that silver device on her left).

>>70274705
I don't really know much about synths, but to capture vocals with good quality you need a good microphone and A/D and that's a different kind of device so I personally wouldn't expect it.

>>70274774
Did you really just use a music video as an example of "real time" playing?
And not only that, but a video which shows extensive usage of looping.
Synths are not designed to play solo pieces with extensive dynamic range without using looping (and in most occasions it'll have to be prerecorded loops), they're just not a piano but a different instrument.

>>70274853
>I'm a trained composer, have been studying music for 10 years, studied the scores of many masters, and been writing music for 15 years.
>Grimes has no talent.
And yet, she's known and respected worldwide and you're a nobody. The results count, buddy. In art (e.g. music), not the most prepared is the best, but the one able to get the best results that affect the people.

>And yes, I dont like catchy music.
Your loss. Keep your pretentious music to yourself then.

>>70274891
>Did you really just use a music video as an example of "real time" playing?
>music video
That's a live performance, not the actual music video. Did she play so well that you were fooled? ;)

Here's another one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6O9O5vXPa30

>>70275002
>That's a live performance, not the actual music video. Did she play so well that you were fooled? ;)
Whatever you want to believe, but it doesn't change the fact that it's still looping sounds.
Looping is the reason why synths have so few octaves in the first place.

>>70275065
You're ignorant. There's looping in that video, but that has been done by that sampler. She played some synth solos, did you hear them? They were played in real time. Same thing for the video posted here >>70275002

>>70250948
>but i drink my pee
Mozart eats poop

>>70275190
>There's looping in that video
Which was exactly my point, yeah.
>She played some synth solos, did you hear them?
Yeah, she can play whatever she wants as long as it extends only on 3 octaves, beyond that she must transpose the octaves of the keyboard, something that is impossible when playing in real time.
3 octaves are severely limiting for most of the repertoire of a piano, which is not a big issue since a synth is not a piano in the first place, but some anon asked.

>>70275065
>Looping is the reason why synths have so few octaves in the first place.
False. The real reason is cutting costs. Smaller keyboard, smaller size, smaller costs. Also portability. Could you imagine how big a synth with a full keyboard (like a piano) would be?

>>70275253
In electronic music 3 octaves are enough most of the time. If you want a full keyboard, get a piano. Easy.

The point is that you could play solos on synths very well.

>>70275259
>False. The real reason is cutting costs. Smaller keyboard, smaller size, smaller costs.
The reason why they can cut costs that way in the first place is because with transposing switches and loops they can emulate sounds of virtually all the range and layer them on top of each other without the need of having a key for every single note on all the range.
If they didn't had any of those, almost all synths would sacrifice all of those things in order to have a bigger keyboard, because 3 octaves is a very limited range, especially for an instrument that wants to be capable of doing both low bass lines and middle-high end melodies.

>>70275334
>The reason why they can cut costs that way in the first place is because with transposing switches and loops they can emulate sounds of virtually all the range and layer them on top of each other without the need of having a key for every single note on all the range.
Indeed. They cut the costs because they could. As I said the keys on a synth don't have fixed sounds assigned to them. They're more like controllers.

NEW THREAD >>70275514

>>70274941
>she's known and respected worldwide
lolno. She's partially known on /mu/. Thats about it.

>The results count
billions of flies eat shit, but that doesn't make it good. Results dont mean anything. If results were the only thing that counted, justin beiber and taylor swift would be the highest quality music ever made.

>>70273016
Don't honestly know much about synths. Most of my hands-on experience is with analog instruments (like mechanical pipe organs.)

>>70273136
>her vain DIY attitude and faux originality appeals to insecure young people that want to feel unique.
t. person who is adamantly arguing against what they claim is now mainstream opinion on this board

>>70273238
She routinely does things like combine electronic dance beats with counterpuntal vocal writing in the context of contemporary pop music.

>>70275613
>lolno. She's partially known on /mu/. Thats about it.
You're wrong. She's very respected worldwide. Start with the critics' opinions and AOTY lists: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Art_Angels#Critical_reception

>>70255978

File: 1464269618297.gif (2MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 640x480px

>>70275792
>combine electronic dance beats with counterpuntal vocal writing
>combine electronic dance beats with counterpuntal vocal writing
>combine electronic dance beats with counterpuntal vocal writing

>>70275613
>Results dont mean anything.
You can't be this dumb.

>If results were the only thing that counted, justin beiber and taylor swift would be the highest quality music ever made.
You're confusing sales with quality. There's no good or bad music, just music that you like and music you don't like. Period.